|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 24, 2008 23:48:00 GMT -5
Ljubotan, how do you explain surnames like Srbinovski, Milosavlevski, Stanisavevski Dobrivoyeski, Yovanovski (not: Ivanovski), Kneževski (not: Knezovski), Stanoykovski, Ðorðevski (not: Georgievski), Kraljevski (not:Kralevski), Dimitriyevski (not: Dimitrovski), Stanoykovski (not: Stankovski), Vukadinovski (not: Volkadinovski), Vuèkovski (not: Volèevski)............and many others............
This are only names with specific Serbian roots, unknown in Bulgarian or with different form. Demonstrating the Serbian character of the bearers of a surname that has root present both in Bulgaria and Serbia, i.e Živkovski, Arsovski, Nikolovski, Petrovski, Stankovski etc. is not possible based solely on them.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 24, 2008 23:52:02 GMT -5
Example:
First 10 male names by rank 1 Aleksandar (Greek) 2 Zoran (Serbian) 3 Nikola (Greek) 4 Goran (Serbian) 5 Dragan (Serbian) 6 Deyan (Serbian) 7 Iliya (Jewish) 8 Igor (Scando-Russian) 9 Petar (Greek) 10 Lyubèo (Slavic)
First 10 female names by rank: 1.Mariya (Jewish) 2.Bilyana (Slavic) 3.Elena (Greek) 4.Vesna (Slavic) 5.Snežana (Slavic) 6.Violeta (English) 7.Aleksandra (Greek) 8.Suzana (Jewish) 9.Lyubica (Serbian) 10.Katerina (Greek)
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 25, 2008 0:07:38 GMT -5
Vilayet of Veles, village of Jabolchiste:
„Novak Burhanin,; Tome Belche, Bogche, Todor, son of Belche; Hrchko, brother of Pecko; Pejo, son of Danche, Vlkashin, Srbin; Gjurash, Srbin, Rade Stari; Dojchin, his son; Gjorgjo, son of Rade; Rale Momchil; Hrlo, son of Dapko; Brajko, son of Kovach; Ivan; Stale,son of Stojan; Rale, son of Stojan; Stepan, Srbin; Dabe; Pejchin, son of Rade...â€
(Turski dokumenti za istorijata na makedonskiot narod, Skopje, 1971, str 143)
village of Dobrushevo, Vilayet of Prilep: „Bogdan Srbin; Marko, his son, Dimitri son of Gruban...Dimitri son of Srbin; Todor son of Srbin, Pejo son of Rajcho...
(Turski dokumenti za istorijata na makedonskiot narod, Skopje, 1971, str 60)
village of Sopotnica, northwest from Krushevo: â€Ivanish Stale; Stanisha Mano; Petko, Srbin; Petar, Srbin; Stajko Srbin...„
(Turski dokumenti za istorijata na makedonskiot narod, Skopje, 1971, str 540)
village of Divjaci, northwest od Krushevo: â€Jandro, Srbin; Miho son of Srbin; Dimitri son of Srbin, Petko son of the priest...„
(Turski dokumenti za istorijata na makedonskiot narod, Skopje, 1971, str 541)
village of Volkoselo, nahiya of Prilep; â€Bogavec, Srbin; Stanisha son in law of Bogdan...Stanisha, Srbin; Pejo, son of Tonchin...„
(Turski dokumenti za istorijata na makedonskiot narod, Skopje, 1971, str 95)
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Nov 25, 2008 9:48:51 GMT -5
Oops...may I see I single reference that these names are Serbian in origin? because for me they are Bulgarian too, a large number of people bears them here.
As for the villages, those names prove nothing. Only that a few serbs lived in a few totally unknown villages. This is not a rocket science and nobody has ever said that no Serbs lived in macedonia. But giving them as an example of Serbness is much too far.
|
|
|
Post by lozonjare on Nov 25, 2008 15:28:21 GMT -5
Soooo, you're trying to prove that Macedonians really are Serbs?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 25, 2008 17:53:56 GMT -5
^ pre 19th century may tell you so ;D
|
|
|
Post by serban on Nov 25, 2008 19:37:28 GMT -5
To the Serb Novi Pazar: "Macedonians" like Gorans and Torlaks are Bulgarians. The truth is that Torlak dialects are the same as Shop dialects, only a little more Serbian-influenced. The presence of definite article in Torlak dialects like in Bulgarian is a much more relevant argument than the presence of a few minor Serbian features, most of whom are present in Shop dialects too. Most case endings have disappeared in Torlak just like in Shop dialects. Torlaks just like some of western "Macedonians" have been Serbianized so that when Serbia stole the Western Outlands/Borderlands from Bulgaria there were a few hundred Slavs (a tiny minority) in those territories who declared themselves Serbs. The reasons for this Serbianization are not clear to me. It seems that it was a voluntary process that began at the end of the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th century during Ottoman rule.
|
|
|
Post by serban on Nov 25, 2008 19:52:15 GMT -5
This is really funny. It only shows that a there were a few Serbs in some of the villages of present-day FYROM. If the "Macedonians" had been Serbs than then all of them would have been called X Serb by the Turks. The fact the some (very few) of them were called X Serb or Y Serb shows that the rest of the inhabitants were not Serbs. They were Bulgarian. By the way why would the Turks call the "Macedonians" Bulgarians and not Macedonians if they didn't call themselves Bulgarians? When the Turks conquered "Macedonia" they conquered it from the Serbs. So the Turks should have called the "Macedonians" either Serbs or Macedonians, but definitely not Bulgarians. How come all the nations that lived near the "Macedonians" called them Bulgarians? Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs and even Serbs called them Bulgarians. Were all these people that stupid to make such a confusion?
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Nov 25, 2008 20:01:26 GMT -5
I don't think he's trying to prove they are all Serbs, just some of them.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 25, 2008 21:26:40 GMT -5
"To the Serb Novi Pazar: "Macedonians" like Gorans and Torlaks are Bulgarians."
Prove to me they are Bulgarians Pre 19th century. History won't be on your side, even Jordan Ivanov couldn't do anything.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 25, 2008 21:33:11 GMT -5
"I don't think he's trying to prove they are all Serbs, just some of them."
When l first joined ezboard, l too were was following the same idea that 95% of Vardarians are of Bulgarian origin, but research has flipped it around, completely, they are noway of Bulgarian origin, as history suggests. The Bulgarian Exarchate which the Turks backed had a profound effect on the population of vardar.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 25, 2008 23:12:32 GMT -5
Couple more things l want to add for you, and think very carefully what l say:
- According to 'mainstream history' it mentions that Slavs arrived in the Balkans around the 5th and 6th centuries AD, but the Bulgars arrived a 150 years *later*.
- Again according to 'mainstream history', the Bulgars were Oriental people who had names like Kubrat, Omurtag, Telec, Toktu, Pagan, Cok and they spoke an Asiatic language.
Before the Bulgars arrived, some of the Serbs were getting transferred from Vardar to Asia minor. In 649, these serbs founded the city called Gordoservion.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 25, 2008 23:46:49 GMT -5
"By the way why would the Turks call the "Macedonians" Bulgarians and not Macedonians if they didn't call themselves Bulgarians? When the Turks conquered "Macedonia" they conquered it from the Serbs. So the Turks should have called the "Macedonians" either Serbs or Macedonians, but definitely not Bulgarians. How come all the nations that lived near the "Macedonians" called them Bulgarians? Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs and even Serbs called them Bulgarians. Were all these people that stupid to make such a confusion?"
Karl Oestreich in "Makedonian," Geographische Zeitschrift, Vol. X, No.1, 1904, pp.198-99 said the following:
"The city's population (Skopje) consists of all possible elements. The great majority are Serbs - some of whom have come out in favor of the Bulgarian Exarchate and call themselves 'Bulgars' - and Albanians, or Mohammedanized Serbs. Although it is situated south of Shar-planina, Skopje is the cheif city of Old Serbia......The rural population, although it is Serbian in origin, has for the most part given its support to the Exarchate, since a Bulgarian bishop is for them more acceptable than a Greek bishop of the Ecumenical Church to which they formerly belonged. This is how the rural population around Skopje has today come to be mostly Bulgarian; the same is true of the purely serbian Tetovo."
he goes onto say that...."Whoever joined the Bulgarian Exarchate was registered in the Turkish population records as "bulgari-milet" and to the world at large was a Bulgar.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 26, 2008 0:20:39 GMT -5
"To the Serb Novi Pazar: "Macedonians" like Gorans and Torlaks are Bulgarians."
Torlakian is the old serbian dialect.
|
|
|
Post by serban on Nov 26, 2008 9:16:29 GMT -5
Torlak dialects are almost identical to Shop dialects with a little bit more Serbian influence. The grammar is almost identical to the Shop grammar but the vocabulary has many Serbian words, many of whom are probably used by Shop speakers in the Western Outlands too. Torlak dialects are Bulgarian dialects, not what your "linguists" say. The presence of definite article and the lack of most case ending like in Shop dialects of Bulgarian are major Bulgarian features. This is from wikipedia page about Torlak dialects: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torlak_dialect"One of the earliest literary monuments influenced by Torlakian dialects is Manuscript from Temska from 1762 in which its author Kiril Zhivkovich from Pirot considered his language "Simple Bulgarian"." and "The recent screening of the film Zona Zamfirova by director Zdravko Šotra attracted huge popularity in Serbia and Montenegro. However, many spectators, especially from northern Serbia, commented that "the film was good but it really needs subtitles"." Why would you need subtitles when you claim to understand "Macedonian" "lanugage" without a translator? So you can understand a foreign "language" but not "Serbian dialects". Again "Macedonians", Torlaks and Gorans are Bulgarian just like Shops are Bulgarian. There is no way Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs and Serbs have been all mistaking "Macedonians" for Bulgarians for centuries. Especially the Turks, Greeks and Serbs who lived next to both Bulgarians and "Macedonians" couldn't have possibly been so stupid not to realize that "Macedonians" and Bulgarians were different nations if indeed the "Macedonians" called themselves Macedonians and not Bulgarians. The Turks and Greeks called the "Macedonians" Bulgarians for centuries. The Turks took "Macedonia" from the Serbs, they should have called the "Macedonians" either Serbs or Macedonians, yet they called them Bulgarians. Another topic regards the shame of "Macedonian" leaders to call themselves Macedonian and their preference to call themselves Bulgarian. Ivan Vladislav, Samuil's nephew called himself Bulgarian. The "Macedonian" "historians" claim that was because to be called Bulgarian during Samuil's and Ivan Vladislav's time it was an honour because Bulgarians were enjoying great prestige in the medieval Balkans. The Bulgarian historian Bozhidar Dimitrov however correctly point out that during the same period Alexandria, a story of Alexander the Great the Macedonian's deeds was widely popular among "Macedonians" and therefore claiming to be Macedonian was not something to be less proud of than claiming to be Bulgarian. On the contrary. Alexander the Great's empire had been much larger than Bulgaria. The reluctance to acknowledge the "Macedonianness" has been shown also by the "Macedonians" Delchev, Sandanski and others. Even Kryste Misirkov claimed to be Bulgarian in his recently discovered private diary. The "Macedonian" "historians" say that they were lying to be Bulgarian because they needed Bulgaria's support in order to free the "Macedonians". Then why would Misirkov say that he is Bulgarian in his PRIVATE diary? Oh I know he intended to publish his diary, that's why he claim to be Bulgarian. Of course this is absurd and ludicrous. Even if they considered themselves "Macedonians" deep down the fact remains that they had NO COURAGE WHATSOEVER to claim publically that they were no Bulgarians. What kind of "Macedonian" heroes are these anyway? No normal nation would be proud of people belonging to it who hadn't the courage or were ashamed to admit their true ethnic identity. This is true not only for the "Macedonian" revolutionaries but also for the "Macedonian" tsar Samuil and his successors. Of course the truth is that Samuil, Sandanski, Delchev and others had a Bulgarian national identity. Copy paste seems to be needed: This is really funny. It only shows that a there were a few Serbs in some of the villages of present-day FYROM. If the "Macedonians" had been Serbs than then all of them would have been called X Serb by the Turks. The fact the some (very few) of them were called X Serb or Y Serb shows that the rest of the inhabitants were not Serbs. They were Bulgarian. By the way why would the Turks call the "Macedonians" Bulgarians and not Macedonians if they didn't call themselves Bulgarians? When the Turks conquered "Macedonia" they conquered it from the Serbs. So the Turks should have called the "Macedonians" either Serbs or Macedonians, but definitely not Bulgarians. How come all the nations that lived near the "Macedonians" called them Bulgarians? Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs and even Serbs called them Bulgarians. Were all these people that stupid to make such a confusion?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 26, 2008 10:27:19 GMT -5
^ Novi stop dreaming the fyroms were ever Serbs. What they are is obvious in their language (and the same goes for the Torlakians). You excentric thesis that the Exarchate is the cause those people felt Bulgarian is totally illogical and anyone who knows about the Exarchate would proove you wrong. You may see what the Exarchate was in wiki and how little time it was active. There is no way it can change language of a nation in 20 years and you know it. Even nikola who obviously is a big fan of the Serbs (as every fyrom today) cannot lie and say fyrom "language" is closer to Serbian, though he wished to
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 26, 2008 10:48:45 GMT -5
Serban, again brilliant logic and again you are showing big knowledge on the true historic sources on fyrom... but you are barking at the wrong three. the fyroms are thought to hate the bulgarians, the serbs did their best to enshure it.
|
|
|
Post by serban on Nov 26, 2008 10:52:34 GMT -5
Thanks. Of course the FYROMians, Gorans and Torlakians are Bulgarians. Gorans are a kind of Pomaks who speak a Bulgarian dialect just like the Pomaks.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Nov 26, 2008 15:19:05 GMT -5
Cvijic talks about slavophone populations in Macedonia as well as those in what is now western Bulgaria and southeast Serbia as one without clearly defined ethnicity (neither Bulgarian or Serbian one) and one that viewed itself as simply being Slav (with clearly Byzantine culture) up to 19th-20th century. Cvijic o Makedoniji: Najveca mesavina naroda u Evropi (Cvijic on Macedonia: Biggest Mix of people in Europe) linkUse bellow tool is you do not understand Serbian (but click on Croatian as it is written in Latin characters) translate.google.com/
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 26, 2008 17:57:27 GMT -5
You haven't proved anything, again l ask, show me evidence. The wikipedia link is the one l used and it describes the dialect as a serbian dialect.
|
|